the inﬂuence of music learning cultures on the construction of … · table 1 implicit theories...

B. J. Music Ed. 2014 31:3, 319–342 C© Cambridge University Press 2014doi:10.1017/S0265051714000096 First published online 1 April 2014

The influence of music learning cultures on the constructionof teaching-learning conceptions

A m a l i a C a s a s - M a s , 1 J u a n I g n a c i o P o z o 2 a n d I g n a c i o M o n t e r o 2

1Real Conservatorio Superior de Música de Madrid. Departamento de Pedagogía. c/Santa Isabel, 53, CP:28012, Madrid, Spain2Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Facultad de Psicología. C/ Iván Pavlov, 6, CP: 28049, Madrid, Spain

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Current research in music education tends to put the emphasis on learning processes outsideformal academic contexts, both to rethink and to renew academic educational formats.Our aim is to observe and describe three music learning cultures simultaneously, includingformal, non-formal and informal settings: Classical, Jazz and Flamenco, respectively. Weobserved the conceptions of learning, teaching and evaluation within the framework ofimplicit theories. We used multiple-choice questionnaires to infer the profiles of theseconceptions in 30 guitarists who are starting out on their professional careers in the threecultures and analysed whether there are related profiles. The results show that: (a) theFlamenco culture differs significantly from the others in the conception of teaching; (b)the three cultures are most alike in the conception of evaluation, for which conceptionsare more sophisticated; (c) the classical culture is closer to constructive conceptions andfarther from direct positions, while the opposite is true of Flamenco.

I n t r o d u c t i o n

Music education, like other fields of education, increasingly needs to review its forms oftransmission and foster changes in the development of learners and future professionals,which are compatible with society’s new learning demands. Among the factors fostering thiscultural change are the epistemological beliefs and conceptions sustained by the differentagents of musical education – both teachers (Hallam, 2007; Bautista, 2009; López-Íñiguezet al., 2014) and learners (Bautista et al., 2012; Marín et al., 2012). Many studies havebeen conducted on experts and novices and on types of learning strategies, focusingmore on quality than quantity of practice (Jørgensen, 2002; Duke et al., 2009). There isalso increasing interest in finding out what musicians focus their attention on during thedifferent stages of studying and practicing sheet music (Williamon et al., 2002; Chaffinet al., 2003) or music without a score (Green, 2001, 2011).

To date, most of the research on teaching and learning conceptions in differentdomains, such as mathematics, physics, psychology or music, has been conducted informal education contexts, such as academic institutions of Western European tradition. Inthe case of music, these are conservatories and regulated music schools. But is the sametrue in other musical cultures?

319

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051714000096Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 07 Nov 2020 at 03:18:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0265051714000096

mailto:[email protected]

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1017/S0265051714000096&domain=pdf

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051714000096

https://www.cambridge.org/core

Ama l i a Casas -M as e t a l .

The idea for this research arose from the fact that one of the researchers is a musicteacher at the Royal Conservatory of Music in Madrid (Spain) and was trained in theacademic tradition, but is a jazz and flamenco performer. For her work as a performer,she was trained in non-formal and informal settings, where she experienced other waysof teaching and learning music. Therefore the study takes a novel stance by using asimultaneous approach to analyse conceptions of teaching and learning in formal andnon-formal music contexts. We assume that different contexts promote different types oflearning cultures in relation to the education and transmission of knowledge. In the domainof music, this allows us to observe a wide variety of aspects of learning, such as concepts,procedures, attitudes and emotions that learners inform us about. We then describe theimpact of various educational contexts on beliefs about teaching, learning or evaluation ofknowledge.

Te a c h i n g a n d l e a r n i n g c u l t u r e s a s t r i g g e r s f o r i m p l i c i t c o n c e p t i o n s

Based on cognitive archaeology models, Donald (1991, 1993) claims that each culturerequires different mental activity including its own formats of representation and socialcommunication. The same might apply to cultural contexts designed to promote learningand teaching, which generate their own educational settings, tools and communicativesystems. Olson and Bruner (1996) propose four models, which represent not onlyconceptions regarding culture and the relationship between minds and culture, but alsomental concepts and beliefs about teaching and learning. These models allow us tounderstand the ways people construct meanings about the learning and teaching in relationto educational issues.

These conceptions may influence educational practices in different cultural contextsbecause they express the formats for transmitting knowledge that evolve according to theconcept of learner held. The implicit theories seem to contribute to the discourse thatparticipants use in educational situations, so we assume that they may be found whenteachers and learners talk about these processes (Pozo et al., 2006). These beliefs evolvefrom theories epistemologically linked from realism towards constructivist perspectivism(Bautista et al., 2010; López-Íñiguez et al., 2013; Scheuer, de la Cruz y Pozo, 2002).

The use of the Direct Theory implies that the learner’s mind is a blank slate which theteacher tries to remedy by offering his/her knowledge by demonstration, like an artisan,fostering the learner’s imitation of the teacher’s own performance. This theory is consideredone of the oldest views of learning. In the Interpretative Theory, the teacher’s knowledgeis expressed by means of explanation and declarative knowledge. Faithful reproduction ofthis knowledge can be demanded anyway, but conceiving the learner as ‘knower’ impliesthat the teacher understands that a series of psychological processes take place in thelearner’s mind. The activation of those processes will affect the learning that the teacherexpects the learner to achieve, and it may thus be included in the interpretative theory.

Teachers using Constructive Theory tend to see the learner as a thinker, which involvesa conceptual change. The learner’s reconstruction of reality and knowledge is whatmakes learning possible. The student’s role is therefore active. Now, for the learner tobe constructive in addition to being a thinker, he/she must learn to regulate and managecognitive and motor processes for him/herself, and be able to establish a pact between

320



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051714000096


The i nfluence o f m us i c l ea rn i ng cu l t u r e s on the c ons t r uc t i on o f t each i ng - l ea rn i ng concep t i ons

self–produced knowledge and culturally accumulated, teacher-mediated knowledge. Inother words, the learner must construct a personal representation of the music he/she playsand composes without ignoring the surrounding culture.

For De Corte (1996), and many other authors, constructivism is not to teach knowledgeand skills transferring to an ‘empty’ mind of a passive learner; instead teaching is designedto promote student’s cognitive processes, so that they can construct meanings, senses,knowledge and skills actively provided on the basis of their previous cognitive structures(Piaget, 1974) and within their ZPD (Vygostky, 1933/1978). The crux of the matter isthe transformative role and constructive of the epistemic subject (Bransford et al., 2000;Sawyer, 2006). Then, the teacher’s role is to guide and supervise the start-up of the learner’sreflexive, metacognitive, emotional and affective processes, as the main way of fosteringhis/her understanding and autonomy, which is what will enable the student to take on therole of expert, in the words of Olson and Bruner. Teaching thus focuses on the interactiverelationship among learner, teacher and learning material or instrument.

A relationship can be established between the different teaching-learning culturesproposed by Olson and Bruner and the implicit theories that the individuals participatingin each may develop (as shown in Table 1). But so far, it has not been easy to find many‘pure’ cases of each theory (Bautista et al., 2012; Marín et al., 2013). They are not closedprofiles, and it seems that people share certain principles or others, depending on wherethey are thinking or acting. We will explain this below.

C o n c e p t i o n s o f m u s i c t e a c h i n g a n d l e a r n i n g i n d i ff e r e n t e d u c a t i o n a ld i m e n s i o n s

Studies such as those by Klatter et al. (2001), Kember (2001) and Peterson and Irving(2008) describe the degrees of consistency in the theories of students from the end ofelementary school to university level in different educational scenarios. The idea describedby Entwistle (2007) as representational multiplicity refers to the fact that the restrictions ofa given dimension may give rise to different representations. Thus, the theories of learningand teaching may be composed of a set of situated (contextualised) conceptions basedon different assumptions, forming profiles, which are theoretically ‘hybrid’, as direct-interpretative, interpretative-constructive and constructive. So far, a direct-constructiveprofile has not been found (Casas & Pozo, 2008) due to conceptual rupture that makes itdifficult for them to coexist.

In general, the interpretative theory coexists with both the direct and the constructivetheories (López-Íñiguez et al., 2014), implying that it not just a ‘transition theory’ towardsthe constructive theory, but also a ‘hinge theory’ from which it is necessary to make aconceptual change. From the standpoint of conceptual change, it is considered that thedevelopment of a more sophisticated theory (constructive) does not require the replacementof the intuitive theories (direct and interpretative), but rather, the ability to integrate multipleperspectives (see Pozo & Gómez Crespo, 2005).

Would it be more common to find hybrid profiles in all cultures? Can we find pureprofiles more consistently in some cultures than in others? Below we shall describe thedifferent social settings of music teaching and learning and see whether there are multiplerepresentations within the different cultural groups. Could one cultural group consistently

321



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051714000096


Am

aliaC

asas-Mas

etal.

Table 1 Implicit theories about learners’ minds regarding culturally configured elements of the teaching-learning process. Adaptedfrom Olson and Bruner (1996) and Pérez Echeverría, Mateos, Pozo, & Scheuer (2001)

Concept of What makes learning Concept ofImplicit theory learner What is acquired possible Role of teacher Role of learner teacher

Direct theory Doer Skill/ability Ability to do Demonstrator Imitation CraftspersonInterpretative

theoryKnower Knowledge Ability to learn Expositor Comprehension Authority

(Postmoderntheory)

Thinker Beliefs Ability to think Collaborator Interpretation Colleague

Constructivetheory

Expert ‘Objective’ knowledgeand expertise

Ability to contribute tocultural store

Informationmanager

Knowledgeconstructor

Consultant

322

https://ww

w.cam

bridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051714000096

Dow

nloaded from https://w

ww

.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 07 N

ov 2020 at 03:18:25, subject to the Cambridge Core term

s of use, available at


https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051714000096



express itself differently regarding different educational dimensions? If those differences doappear, what might they be based on?

C u l t u r e a n d m u s i c l e a r n i n g

We shall begin by defining the term ‘culture’ anthropologically as a system of publicrepresentations endowed with public meanings (Sperber, 1996). Such public (in the senseof shared) representations are only connected to what they represent by the meaningattributed to them by those who produce or use them. By ‘cultural representations’ theauthor refers to those that are very common in a human group; therefore, to analysecultural representations is to explain why many persons share some of them. This is whythe author defends the idea of ‘epidemiology of cultural representations’, which is based onhow representations are shared in a more or less generalised way without a clear boundarybetween cultural and individual representations.

Most music educational research focuses on observing the teaching processes atinstitutional sites, or what we shall call academic cultures, based on the premise thatmusic learning is the result of being exposed to methodical, formally sequenced musicteaching. The mediation tools or external representations which have been analysed arealso based on notation, generally classical (Gruson, 1988; Woody, 1999; Hultberg, 2002;McPherson, 2005; Hallam, 2007; Casas & Pozo, 2008; Bautista et al., 2009; López-Íñiguez& Pozo, in press; Marín et al., 2013).

During the past 20 years there has been increasing interest in considering non-formaland informal contexts within institutional settings and applying them to teaching (Dunbar-Hall & Wemyss, 2000; Wang & Humphreys, 2009; Robinson, 2010), as well as variousforms of informal music learning outside institutional settings (Folkestad, 1998; Green,2001, 2008; Shah, 2006). This is part of the shift in focus from teaching to learning, andthus from teacher to learner.

This may lead to understanding the situation as an opposition between oracy andliteracy, however, Lilliestam (1996) claims that rather than viewing it as in opposition or adichotomy, it should be seen as a continuum where different cultures have different degrees(and types) of literacy. Today it is more relevant to speak of oral and literate strategies fordifferent types of aims and which work more or less well for different purposes.

Taking Folkestad’s (2004) idea that ‘creative music making takes place in a process ofinteraction between the participants’ musical experience and competence, their culturalpractice, the tools, the instruments and the instructions, altogether forming the affordancesin the creative situation’ (pp. 87–88) we cannot establish associations that simplify theformal and informal contexts according to the tools they use. Nevertheless, it is a definitionusing Vygotskian terms, from which we do see that these tools, instruments and instructions,tend to be organised differently according to whether they are expressed by means of sheetmusic or other types of representations (e.g. gestures). Furthermore, they develop fromdifferent experiences and competencies favoured in each.

It is very well known that musicians of the classical tradition prioritise notationcompared with non-classical musicians. Moreover, the idea of regular, constant practiceis crucial to classical musicians but not such a high priority to non-classical musicians,

323



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051714000096



Table 2 Differences between the poles of the Formal and Informal contexts in musicaleducation, following Folkestad (2006) and Trilla (1997)

FORMAL INFORMAL

Planning Activity sequenced beforehand Activity not sequencedbeforehand

Goal The activity focuses on how to learn towork/play/compose

The activity focuses onthe way of work-ing/playing/composing

Participants Arranged by the teacher, usually theperson who leads the activity (notnecessarily a teacher in the formalsense, but someone who leads andorganises the learning activity, e.g.one of the musicians in the group).This position does not have to bestatic, although it usually is

The process proceeds bythe interaction of theparticipants in theactivity

Motivation Sometimes there may be conflict anddifferences between teacher’s andlearners’ motivations

Described as aself-chosen, voluntarylearning

Place Within institutions Outside institutionsLearning Style (nature

and quality of theprocess)

Learning to play from sheet music Learning to play by ear

Leadership in theactivity (who takesthe decisions aboutthe activity)

Didactic teaching Open, self-regulatedlearning

Intentionality High Low

who may practice much more sporadically and intensively, and use recordings as everydaytools (Green, 2001, 2008).

F r o m f o r m a l a n d n o n - f o r m a l t o i n f o r m a l c o n t e x t s i n m u s i c e d u c a t i o n

In connection with the above, the contexts in which each culture develops are not formalor informal because of the tools they use, but rather due to the set of cultural practices.Similarly, it would be a prejudice to claim that formal music learning is a synonym ofwestern classical music using sheet music, and that informal learning is restricted to popularmusic transmitted by ear (Middleton, 1981; Folkestad, 2006). What is learned and howthe elements are interconnected are not shaped by the type of music itself, but rather by agiven approach to music that uses certain tools (representations, processes, contents andconditions) as mediators for people developing within a given context. These approachesare what we call learning cultures. Table 2 shows the differences between the formal andinformal poles, following Folkestad (2006) and Trilla (1997).

324



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051714000096



Between the two poles we can find a wide range of grey, but it is possible todefine the ends and midpoint as follows. At one end are the musicians who comefrom an academic culture, dominated by education at conservatories and structuresgoverned by evaluation and accreditation, as well as courses and degree structures.In the middle, there is a field of education which is gradually being included informalised education but still often situated in independent schools. An examplewould be some kinds of educational structures distributed in courses and degrees, butwith parallel accreditation to formal education, so it might be called a non-formalenvironment.

Finally, there is a musical education environment based on informal education, withno defining structure of courses, no degree or official certification. Music educationencompasses a complex family social system, including the learner’s close and extendedfamily, with teachers as references in informal learning. We believe that this threefolddistinction is legitimate to describe different types of objectives, not only musical, whichwould in turn establish different types of priorities for the music, the musical parameterssought and valued, and therefore its impact on the type of practice that different cultureswould prioritise (Trilla, 1997).

Such contexts have received little attention in music education research, althoughthey are increasingly considered. Most research into informal musical education focuseson pre-university educational environments (e.g. Schippers, 1996; Seifried, 2006; Georgii-Hemming & Westvall, 2010; Gower, 2012), on concepts, influences, tastes andmusical preferences of the youngest students (e.g. Howe & Sloboda, 1991; Lamontet al., 2003) and teacher training programmes (Wang & Humphreys, 2009; Wright &Kanellopoulos, 2010; Robinson, 2012), sometimes trying to answer the question ofintegrating cultures in compulsory education classrooms and other occasions intendedto apply to formal education models of popular music as a means to introduce classicalmusic.

However, as Green (2008) says about popular music and informal learning, it isvaluable in and for itself. Hence our purpose to observe the conceptions of music inboth formal and informal realms, giving each of them their own intrinsic value. We shallfirst need to clarify certain definitions of the types of music that we will consider, becauselanguage is a means for constructing and approaching reality.

To w a r d s a d e fi n i t i o n o f m u s i c a l c u l t u r e

Since the 1980s there has been much debate regarding the definition of ‘popular’ musicand its distinction from ‘art music’ and ‘folk’ (Middleton, 1981). As explained above, itwould be an oversimplification to directly associate art music to formal learning, andfolk and popular music to informal and non-formal learning. Art music is what we definenowadays as music from a Western European Classical perspective that includes severaltypes, such as Baroque, Romantic, Classical and 20th century music (Elliott, 1989). It hasbeen labelled as serious music and in Spanish-speaking countries labelled as música culta.This implies that other kinds of music which are not labelled as such would not classify asserious or cultured – folk music on the one hand, but even more so, popular music. ‘Just asaddicts of serious music had regarded popular music with distaste or disgust, so folk-music

325



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051714000096



Table 3 Folk, art and popular music; an axiomatic triangle. Taken from Tagg (1982)

Folk Art PopularCharacteristic Music Music Music

Produced and transmitted by Primarily professionals x xPrimarily amateurs x

Mass distribution Usual xUnusual x x

Main mode of storage Oral transmission xand distribution Musical notation x

Recorded sound xType of society in which Nomadic or agrarian x

the category of music Agrarian or industrial xmostly occurs Industrial x

Written theory and Uncommon x xaesthetics Common x x

Composer/Author Anonymous xNon-anonymous x x

performers and scholars frequently viewed popular music with disdain. There was ‘good’,‘pure’ popular music, which was the authentic music of the people, and could be called‘folk’, or perhaps ‘traditional’ music; and there was ‘bastardised’, ‘contaminated’ music ofthe people, which was dismissed by derogatory terms such as ‘popular’, ‘commercial’, oreven ‘urban’’ (Blacking, 1978, pp. 7–9).

Following Tagg (1982), popular music, unlike art music, is conceived for massdistribution (in the positivist definition of Middleton, 1990) to large and often socio-culturally heterogeneous groups of listeners (in the sociological essentialism definitionof Middleton, 1990). Whether the people are regarded as an active, progressive historicalsubject or a manipulated dupe varies. But the music is stored and distributed in non-written form, only possible in an industrial monetary economy where it becomes acommodity, and in a capitalist society subject to the laws of ‘free’ enterprise, accordingto which it should ideally sell as much as possible of as little as possible to as many aspossible.

The argument exists that popular music cannot be analysed using only traditional toolsof musicology, because it is neither conceived nor designed to be stored or distributedas notation, a large number of important parameters of musical expression being eitherdifficult or impossible to encode in traditional notation. One of its great difficulties isthe description of emotional aspects in music either occurring sporadically or beingavoided altogether, and mostly ‘immediate’ aspects (such as sound, timbre, electro-musicaltreatment, ornamentation, etc.), which are relatively unimportant – or ignored – in theanalysis of art music but extremely important in popular music.

On the one hand Traditional or Folk music is characterised in this point of view bybeing produced and transmitted by amateurs, transmitted and stored in oral tradition tosmaller, local audiences, in societies which are mostly nomadic or agrarian and withno known composers or authors. Flamenco music in its deepest origins shared some

326



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051714000096



common characteristics with folk music. But nowadays it is defined as urban music ofthe 20th century, like other Mediterranean music belonging to popular culture (Fado,Neapolitan Song, Rebetika, Rai, Ughniya, Arabesk . . . ), like Jazz. On the other hand,some classical music (such as Indian Classical Music) still does not meet the description offormal education and would belong to the traditional music group. However, traditionalmusic would also include other kinds of music than folk style.

Nevertheless, we refer in this study to the formal context of western classical musicdefined above and transmitted in the academic culture, although we are fully aware of thenuances, and we will call it the Classical culture. Similarly, we shall refer hereinafterby non-formal and informal learning to popular music to Jazz culture and Flamencoculture, respectively. Although being non-formal or informal will depend on the abovecharacteristics, we explain below why this classification was used in the cultures selectedfor this study.

In Spain there are currently three different music cultures, in terms of formal andinformal realms, from which many others may be explained. Madrid is a large city that canconcentrate a significant amount of musicians and provide most of the sample needed forobserving how people share certain types of beliefs.

It seems that there is a small problem in establishing that Classical and Jazz culturesbelong to formal and non-formal respectively, as defined above. However, Flamenco ispopular music, as Jazz is, although there are significant differences in their social contexts.It is true that at a semi-professional level learners are supervised by teachers as in othercultures. But these apprentices carry a significant musical baggage of learning in thehome environment (Howe & Sloboda, 1991), and not exclusive to the instrument, buta more global learning (in percussion, singing and dancing). In fact, teachers are usuallythe most experienced members of the family (both close and distant), who learners oftencall ‘uncle’. This previous background, which learners would have, has been defined asinformal context.

It is a great opportunity to compare a highly formalised context of Classical with twodifferent cultures, which in turn differ subtly from each other, and therefore cannot havethe same consideration although they are both popular music. This may be a historicmoment for this observation, because the traditional formats tend to merge or disappearwith globalisation and can offer different learning profiles of much value. For this reasonwe aim to observe simultaneously the educational beliefs in Classical music, Flamencoand Jazz, which could allow us to see whether there are really any differences in theconceptions they advocate in educational situations.

Classical culture. One of the features of the classical culture of this study is that ittakes place in specifically designed places and institutions, such as the conservatory RealConservatorio Superior de Música, where teachers have been selected by competition orspecific tests. Teaching follows a curriculum of Artistic Teaching issued by the nationalgovernment and the autonomous community of Madrid (Royal Decree 631/2010, of May14 and Decree 36/2011, of June 2). It teaches classical repertoire (in all its styles) withtraditional sheet music. All this endows it with a wide margin of cultural explicitation,or awareness of the elements learned, because they have been developed in externalrepresentations systems such as musical notation. Activities are organised in weekly one-to-one and group classes, in addition to auditions, which are primarily individual, and

327



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051714000096



exams, such as the final exam at the end of the course, which lead to the award of anofficial degree.

Flamenco culture. In the opposite place, we have the flamenco culture, for whichwe focused on participants of gypsy ethnicity. If conceptions and beliefs are culturallybuilt, it would be necessary to observe communities in which the differences go beyondmusical differences, such as may be true of the gypsy community. This would imply asocial construction arising from areas of everyday interaction and not just in the musicaldomain, although we observe them in the latter. Moreover, in previous studies we havefound that their discourse marks values that differ significantly from those of non-gypsieswithin flamenco (Casas et al., 2013). The flamenco culture does not use official institutionsbut relies on personal pedagogical projects at a private academy or the teacher’s home.The teacher is a reference figure due to his (typically) career, and has not passed anykind of selective test. Participants also practice many hours in a family setting and withpeers, during which they exchange exercises, falsetas (variations) and pieces inherited fromteachers or composed by themselves. Nowadays they often use video/audio recordings astools, particularly on mobile phones, but they do not use any kind of notation. There areno exams or specific accreditations.

Like the studies of Karlsen (2012) and Sexton (2012), musical competence ofgypsy students may not be completely recognised at school in Spain. The first stepwould thus be to better understand the cultures that we have in an educationalcontext.

Jazz culture. Classical and flamenco music represent the poles of the formal-informalcontinuum. Jazz is in an intermediate position that we shall call non-formal and defineas one that uses procedures or instances that break one or some of the formal rules. Inthe jazz culture, even in more institutionalised situations, there are at the same time non-formal or informal learning structures such as jam sessions, which are essential to learnertraining. At jam sessions, the musicians listen to performers in a natural musical context(at clubs), where they can approach the stage (which is usually at the same level as theaudience) and take part by starting to play and stopping when they feel the urge to doso. This kind of session is usually held on a weekly basis and provides an opportunity forplaying with professional musicians, social enjoyment and learning. In Madrid, jazz highereducation is still imparted at independent schools that award their own degrees, whichare not officially recognised. They mainly play standards in which the melody is written intraditional notation and the harmony in chord symbol notation (chart), so that the learnerhas an outline of the piece from the beginning.

Based on the description of the cultures selected for this study, we will present ourresearch questions, which will help us understand different systems of musical educationand their relationship with their social setting.

Our first question is whether participant discourse differs significantly among the threecultures studied. In other words, might the learner prefer one or another type of theorydepending on the musical culture he/she belongs to?

Our second question is about the homogeneity of the theories within each cultureconsidering the three educational dimensions. Do participants in a given culturemaintain the same implicit theories regarding the learning, teaching and evaluationdimensions?

328



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051714000096



Our third question is how the three educational dimensions influence the choiceof theory. Are teaching and learning described differently in cultures that use musicalnotation and those that do not? Is evaluation the same in cultures with and without officialaccreditation?

We chose to observe guitarists because the guitar is the common instrument to thethree largest cultures. The sample was selected among musicians with a semi-professionallevel of learning, who could still think and express themselves as learners, while at thesame time having considerable experience of the culture and playing in several publicconcerts a year. The great advantage of asking semi-professional learners is that thereare processes that they do not yet automatically control as an expert would. Thus,they may even verbalise procedures and strategies because they have not yet beenencapsulated.

Previous studies on learners’ conceptions about music education focused on beginner,elementary and professional levels (Bautista et al., 2010, 2012; López-Íñiguez & Pozo, inpress; Marín et al., 2013). But there is no study of learners who have spent more than10 years immersed in a culture and have played only the music of their own culture. Toanswer our research questions we needed participants who had undergone a process ofenculturation sufficiently large. We excluded any who played in two or more cultures,as they would involve variables outside the scope of this study. This greatly limited thepopulation for the sample.

M e t h o d

Pa r t i c i p a n t s

The participants were 30 guitarists. Nine of them belong to Classical culture (4 male, 5female), aged 19 to 29 years (M = 24.7; SD = 3.6) and spent over 10 years studyingmusic in formal realms like the conservatory, and are studying for a Tertiary Degree (whichcorresponds to a Bachelor of Music Degree) or Master of Music Studies. Most of theirfamilies had some relationship with amateur music. Eleven participants belong to Flamencoculture (11 male)1, aged 15 to 25 years (M = 16.82; SD = 2.96), most have not completedcompulsory secondary education and have been studying the guitar between one and fiveyears with a specific teacher. There were professional musicians in all their families. Tenparticipants belong to Jazz culture (9 male, 1 female), aged 26 to 42 years (M = 29.6; SD= 4.93). They have a College Degree in non-musical studies and most have studied for aProfessional Degree in music (prior to Tertiary studies). Their families have no relation tolearning music.

We first contacted participants through teachers in each culture. The sample is notlimited to the students of these teachers; but those students whose profile was specificto a given culture all had a specific teacher. The classical musicians were from RealConservatorio Superior de Música de Madrid. Jazz musicians were from Escuela de MúsicaCreativa in Madrid, Escuela de Música Creativa in Buenos Aires and Centro Superior deMúsica del País Vasco, Musikene. Flamenco musicians were selected from students of themost renowned teachers in the gypsy neighbourhoods in Madrid.

329



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051714000096



M a t e r i a l s

A multiple-choice questionnaire was used to identify the implicit theories held by musiclearners. The questionnaire was designed by Bautista et al. (2012), and adapted to thetypical situations of learning, teaching and evaluating guitar playing in each culture. Themultiple choice questionnaire poses 16 situations (dilemmas) which are typical of dimen-sions such as the teaching, learning and evaluation of musical interpretation, followed bythree different answer options which are based on the implicit theory framework (direct,interpretative and constructive theories), according to their epistemological, ontologicaland conceptual assumptions. Participants were asked to choose only one answer.

The questions for the learning dimension (5 questions) asked about aspects relatedto cooperative learning, memory, motivation, technical difficulties and approach to newrepertoire. The questions for teaching dimension (5 questions) asked about difficulty of thepiece and difficulties faced by the learner, learner autonomy in class, characteristics ofthe ideal teacher, homework assignment and how to start a new piece when faced withincomplete information. The questions for the evaluation dimension (6 questions) focusedon subjects such as student performance, interest and autonomy, non-standard versions ineach culture and learning to play well (6 questions).

Similar questionnaires have been very useful in studies of conceptions in the fields oflearning and teaching music (Bautista et al., 2009, 2010) and others (Pozo et al., 2006).The following are examples for each educational dimension in the questionnaire (Table 4).

Des i gn and p rocedu re

We conducted a simple, prospective ex post facto study (see Montero & León, 2007), sincewe first formed the groups according to the independent variable – CULTURE – and thengathered information on the dependent variable – Conceptions of Teaching-Learning inthree EDUCATIONAL DIMENSIONS: learning, teaching and evaluation.

Three levels were defined for the variable CULTURE: classical (CL), jazz (JZ) andflamenco (FL) musicians.

A total of 30 semi-structured interviews were conducted. Guitar learners from thethree cultures answered the abovementioned multiple-choice questionnaire. Learnerparticipation (voluntary, without compensation) was 100%. For each question, theywere asked to choose one answer out of three (which referred to each of the threeteaching-learning conceptions). The same researcher conducted all interviews. Studentswere interviewed rather than presented with the written questions because some of theparticipants might have had difficulty with reading comprehension. The oral interview alsoenabled us to enquire more deeply into each of the questions according to the participants’answers, asking them to clarify any aspects that were not well defined. The interviews werecompleted by the middle of the first trimester in the 2010 course.

R e s u l t s

Descriptive statistics were calculated from the frequency with which each implicit theorywas chosen according to the variable CULTURE. We assigned a score of 0 to the Direct

330



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051714000096



Table 4 Examples of questions for each educational dimension in the multiple choicequestionnaire, with answers corresponding to implicit theories, presented here as (a) directtheory; (b) interpretative theory and (c) constructive theory

LEARNING DIMENSIONOne of your students has been practising the same repertoire for some months. However,

because of his technical difficulties, most of the pieces could still be improved on. Whythis is happening?

Most likely, the student is . . .a) . . . not practising enough. I would recommend he practice more. It takesperseverance to solve technical difficulties.b) . . . studying wrongly. I would recommend he solve his technical problems byfollowing my instructions.c) . . . studying without considering specific musical outcomes. I would recommend hethink first about the musical idea, and then, about the technical skills.

TEACHING DIMENSIONIn a normal one-to-one lesson, a student of one of your partners cannot play a piece

because it is technically very demanding. In your opinion, what could the teacher do tohelp her improve the piece?a) Play the passage slowly for the student, so that she could observe how it should beplayed, and then assign technical exercises for homework.b) Explain what the difficulties are and give instructions to solving them, making surethat she understands what to do.c) Ask different questions in order to help her think and reason about the reasons for themistakes and how to work them out.

ASSESSMENT DIMENSIONIn your opinion, the assessment of the instrumental lessons is good above all for . . .

a) . . . teachers to check the students’ musical knowledge and to grade their playing atthe end of every academic term.b) . . . teachers to grade the performance of the students and to analyse which aspectsshould be corrected during subsequent lessons or academic years.c) . . . students, so that after talking with their teachers, they can reflect upon their ownlearning and realise which their strong and weak points are.

Theory, assuming that it ignores the explicit intervention of the learner’s psychologicalprocesses and is based on the epistemological assumption of a single, unquestionablereality, a score of 1 to the Interpretative Theory and 2 to the Constructive Theory. As anovelty compared with previous research in this field, we established a continuum alongwhich intermediate profiles would probably be the most typical. We expected to find aninterpretation of degree rather than classification, which could be used as a heuristic tofind differences that would otherwise be impossible to establish due to the small samplesize (owing to the characteristics of the population studied, as explained in Method). Thevalues were divided by the maximum score so that each participant or group of participantscould be scored along a continuum of 0 to 100%, representing a continuum from the mostdirect to the most constructive conception.

331



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051714000096



Table 5 Averages and standard deviations according to each Culture and Educationaldimension

FLAMENCO JAZZ CLASSICAL Averagen = 11 n = 10 n = 9 n = 30

Conditions/Teaching M = 0.37 M = 0.63 M = 0.72 M = 0.56SD = .13 SD = .16 SD = .23

Processes/Learning M = 0.46 M = 0.60 M = 0.59 M = 0.55SD = 0.14 SD = 0.12 SD = 0.18

Results/Assessment M = 0.64 M = 0.74 M = 0.73 M = 0.70SD = 0.07 SD = 0.09 SD = 0.11

Average M = 0.49 M = 0.66 M = 0.68

Fig. 1 Proportion of Constructivism in the answers from the three cultures in interactionwith the three Educational dimensions

A 3×3 Analysis of Variance was applied (3 cultures, analysed between subjects × 3educational dimensions, analysed within subjects).

Table 5 shows the means, standard deviations and number of observations for each ofthe nine combinations arising from this 3×3. It shows the proportion for the constructivismmean value for each educational dimension in each of the three cultures. Scores weretransformed into proportions along a continuum in which the lowest score for each question(and dimension) was 0 and the highest score was 1, in order to allow comparison amongdimensions containing different numbers of items.

Following León and Montero (2003) in the interpretation of factorial designs, we startby describing the interaction between the two variables, where we found a significanteffect (F(2,54) = 2.69, p < 0.05, η2 = 0.166, 1-β = 0.66).

Figure 1 shows the results obtained for the answers from the Cultures (FL, JZ and CL)interacting with Educational Dimensions (teaching, learning and evaluation). In the rightarea of the figure, there is a pattern of parallel lines for the three Cultures, with FL having

332



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051714000096



the lowest score. All cultures score higher in the evaluation dimension. We will respondlater on as to whether or not these two issues are significant, but this information can besummarised in the principal effects.

In the left area of Fig. 1, the lines are not parallel, so we cannot summarise theinformation in the principal effects. We need to test whether the distances between thethree cultures are significant and whether there is consistency among the answers to thethree dimensions within each culture.

All three cultures have similar patterns for Learning and Evaluation. The greatestdifference between cultures is for the Teaching dimension.

Below, we will break down the interaction of the simple effects to test whether thedistances between the three cultures are significant in the Teaching dimension, and whetherthere is consistency among the answers to the dimensions within the FL culture.

Univariate analysis of variance was performed. We will begin by presenting thebetween-subject analysis, in which the three Cultures are compared.

Be tween-sub j ec t ana l y s i s

Simple ANOVA showed that participant Culture has a significant effect on the degree ofconstructivism of the participant’s conception only in the Teaching dimension F(2, 27) =10.81, p < 0.001.

Post hoc multiple comparisons showed that scores for the teaching dimension differedsignificantly between FL and JZ (p < 0.01) and between FL and CL musicians (p < 0.01).There was no significant difference between JZ and CL musicians.

Global means are higher for CL musicians, i.e. CL make more constructive choices, al-though a detailed analysis shows that JZ musicians score higher – though not significantly –on both learning and evaluation dimensions.

The within-subject analysis is presented below, to see how participants answeredwithin each culture.

Wi th i n - sub j ec t an a l y s i s

For FL, ANOVA showed that cultural group has significant effects on the answers providedfor the different educational dimensions, F(2, 20) = 18.22, p < 0.001. Within-subjectcontrast tests revealed significant differences F(1, 10) = 33.91, p < 0.01, with answersto the Evaluation dimension differing significantly (p < 0.05) from those to Teaching andLearning, while no significant difference was found between the latter two.

For JZ, ANOVA showed that cultural group has significant effects on the answersprovided for different educational dimensions F(2, 18) = 6.34, p < 0.01. However, within-subject contrast tests did not reveal significant differences, and the answers to the threedimensions (Teaching, Learning and Evaluation) did not differ significantly from each other.

For CL, ANOVA showed that cultural group has no significant effect on the answersprovided for the different educational dimensions.

Finally, after breaking down the simple effects to see the results in more detail, we shallpresent the results of the chi-square test for those questions for which it was significant.Thus we can see the election profiles in certain questions.

333



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051714000096



Table 6 ASR values for the chi-squared test in Question 9

P.9. How the teacher assigns homework

Direct Interpretative Constructive

Flamenco 3.6∗∗ − 1.9 − 2.1∗∗

Jazz − 1.6 2.4∗∗ − 1.0Classical − 2.1∗∗ − 0.5 3.2∗∗

∗p < 0.5. ∗∗p < 0.01.


P.13. Teachers action after student has resolved a previous difficulty


Flamenco 2.8∗∗ − 0.2 − 2.6∗∗

Jazz − 1.6 1.0 − 0.8Classical − 1.3 − 0.8 2.0∗∗

∗p < 0.5. ∗∗p < 0.01.

Teach i ng d imens i on

The answers to questions about the Teaching dimension with scores that differ significantlyfrom the random value expected according to χ2 are shown below. We may thus rejectthe null hypothesis of equitable distribution of answers from participants belonging to thethree cultures regarding the three implicit theories (direct, interpretative and constructive).

For Question 9: (how the teacher assigns homework), the value is significant (χ2 (4)= 19.74, p = 0.001) and the adjusted standardised residuals show that the value for FL ishigher than expected for the Direct Theory and lower than expected for the ConstructiveTheory, i.e. they provide more direct answers and fewer constructive answers. The valuefor JZ is higher than the expected for the Interpretative Theory. The value for CL is higherthan expected for the Constructive and lower than expected for the Direct Theory (Table 6).

In Question 13: (teacher’s action after student has resolved a previous difficulty), thevalue is significant (χ2(4) = 10.01, p = 0.040) and Adjusted Standardised Residuals (ASR)show that the value for FL is higher than expected for the Direct Theory and lower thanexpected for the Constructive Theory. The value for CL is higher than expected for theConstructive Theory (Table 7).

There are two more questions whose value is significant with marginal probability,namely questions 12: (How the teacher begins when the student has a difficulty) (χ2(4) =7.97, p = 0.093), for which the ASR show that values for FL are lower than expected forthe Constructive Theory, and question 8: (Teacher’s instructions when giving the studentincomplete information) (χ2(6) = 10.95, p = 0.090), for which the ASR show that thevalues for JZ are higher than expected for the Direct Theory and lower than expected forthe Constructive Theory (Table 8).

334



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051714000096



Table 8 ASR values for the chi-squared test in Questions 12 and 8.

P. 12. How the teacher begins when the student has a difficulty


Flamenco 1.3 1.4 − 2.7∗

Jazz − 0.3 − 1.3 1.7Classical − 1.0 − 0.2 1.1

P.8. Teacher’s instructions when giving the student incomplete informationDirect Interpretative Constructive

Flamenco − 1.1 − 0.2 1.4Jazz 2.5∗ 0.0 − 2.8∗

Classical − 1.5 0.2 1.4

∗p < 0.5. ∗∗p < 0.01.

Table 9 ASR values for the chi-squared test in Questions 1 and 10.

P.1. What student difficulties are due to


Flamenco 3.4∗∗ − 2.4∗∗ − 0.4Jazz − 1.8 1.8 − 0.4Classical − 1.6 0.7 − 0.9

P.10. How the student begins a new pieceDirect Interpretative Constructive

Flamenco 1.9 − 1.4 − 0.5Jazz − 1.1 2.1∗ − 1.5Classical − 0.8 − 0.6 2.1∗

∗p < 0.5. ∗∗p < 0.01.

Lea rn i ng d imens i on

Question 1 for the Learning dimension (what student difficulties are due to) has a significantvalue (χ2(4) = 12.13, p = 0.016), and the ASRs show that the values for FL are higher thanexpected for the Direct Theory and lower than expected for the Interpretative Theory. Thereis also a question – Question 10 (how guitarists learn musical pieces by heart) – whosevalue is significant with marginal probability (χ2(4) = 8.59, p = 0.072) and the ASRs showthat he value for FL is higher than expected for the Direct Theory, the value for JZ is higherthan expected for the Interpretative Theory and the value for CL is higher than expectedfor the Constructive Theory (Table 9).

Eva l ua t i on d imens i on

In Question 3 (how the teacher’s opinion is useful to the student) the chi-square statistichas marginal probability (χ2(4) = 8.08, p = 0.089) and the ASRs show that the value for FL

335



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051714000096




P.3.How the teacher’s opinion is useful to the student


Flamenco 2.2∗ − 0.7 − 1.4Jazz − 0.3 − 1.0 1.5Classical − 2.0∗ 1.8 − 0.1

∗p < 0.5. ∗∗p < 0.01.

is higher than expected for the Direct Theory, while the value for CL is lower than expectedfor the Direct Theory (Table 10).

D i s c u s s i o n

Considering the aims set at the beginning of this study and the results obtained, we willanswer the first question: Might the learner prefer one or another type of theory dependingon the musical culture he/she belongs to? As in previous studies (e.g. López-Íñiguez et al.,2014), we have found that the prevailing conception in all three cultures is interpretative.This is due to the fact that it shares the direct theory’s epistemological principle and actsas a bridge towards and hinge with the constructive theory. We shall discuss our firstquestion regarding differences among the learning cultures and show a first description ofthe participants from the results of χ2 described above.

Learners of FL culture opt for a teaching-learning format which is externally regulatedand based on copying. The teacher is the one who decides the pieces that learners are goingto play and demonstrates how to play them. Students are significantly less likely to opt forchoosing their own pieces. They say that they memorise pieces by repeating fragments andthen repeating the entire piece from beginning to end. The opinion of the teacher servesto correct the student as soon as possible. They prefer the teacher to begin by noting whatis wrong; telling the student how to solve it, without learners thinking about why, whichthe teacher has already done. If the student plays well, the teacher can congratulate him,but he must move on to the next part to be corrected. The first conclusion is that gypsyflamenco musicians differ significantly from the other two cultures regarding the Teachingdimension. This shows that its educational conditions are culturally very different fromCL or JZ. FL is a culture centred on oral transmission in which the replication of efficientmodels is prioritised in order to ensure its preservation, particularly in teaching.

Learners belonging to CL culture opt for student self-regulation. They prefer studentsto choose their own pieces and it is significantly less likely to be the teacher who choosesand shows the students how to play them. They are less likely to choose the option that theteacher’s judgement serves to correct the student as soon as possible. They say that theymemorise pieces by singing and clapping, to capture the meaning and the whole idea.For the benefit of the process of motivation, classical students preferred options in whichthe teacher gets the student to think about why certain things go well, how he has studied

336



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051714000096



and what new things he could focus on now. Overall, they express more constructiveconceptions than FL participants.

Although we have specified that FL learn music more informally, in the context of thefamily, they are now under the tutelage of a guitar teacher. This somewhat modifies thecontinuum described by Trilla (1997) and Folkestad (2006), firstly regarding leadership inthe activity (who takes the decisions) – learners reported didactic teaching in both cases,but with more self-regulated learning in the formal context – and secondly, regarding thequestion of high intentionality and low openness of the task, on the part of the teacher.

At the midpoint, we can see that jazz students argue that the teacher should focus onthe student’s interests and skills. Yet JZ teachers do not grant the learner the same degreeof choice as teachers in the classical setting do. Students say they memorise the pieces byunderstanding the parts of the form and the relationship between chords. It is worth notingthat when JZ teachers give a student incomplete information, there is significant probabilitythat they would prefer the student not to test the topic on his own, in order not to ‘learnwith mistakes’. Instead, they might have chosen to allow the student to try it himself andlearn from his mistakes, if any. This fits even better within the ideological basis of the JZculture, in which the chart itself is incomplete information that needs to be built by theperformer.

The three cultures were found to be more similar than expected in the Evaluationdimension, where we had thought that the lack of official accreditation in the non-formaland informal settings might make a difference to the conceptions. However, it was herethat the highest number of constructive responses was provided and the three cultureswere found to be closest, in agreement with the results of López and Pozo (2010) andLópez-Íñiguez et al. (2014). This may be explained by the fact that in all three traditions,the participants were still undergoing training, but at the same time were semi-professionaland performing regularly in public under their own responsibility.

We shall now discuss our second question about the homogeneity within each cultureregarding the three dimensions analysed. The significant difference within FL is surprisingdue to the difference between the evaluation dimension and the teaching dimension, forwhich the pattern is much more direct. This opens questions about the coexistence ofconceptions in ‘harmony’ that we have been supporting, or Entwistle’s (2007) ‘representa-tional multiplicity’. It is also noteworthy that direct and constructive theories can coexistconsistently within the same participants, when the literature on the subject supports theneed for a conceptual break or change to activate constructivist conceptions and thereforedirect-constructive profiles had not been found before (López-Íñiguez et al., 2014).

Considering these three cultures simultaneously, we should pay special attention tothe homogeneity of the flamenco culture, which appears as atypical and deserves furtherstudy so that it may be understood more comprehensively. In designing the study, it shouldconsider and respect all groups, regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion or culture. Then,considering the impact of various methodologies on different groups, this moves us toseek other methodologies to establish new parameters with cultures that have a differentapproach to reality. These new parameters could then be evaluated in the cultures withacademic tradition.

Finally, we will discuss the third question about the influence of the educationaldimensions. We interpret that the participants – in our case students – have more complex

337



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051714000096



conceptions in the dimensions that make them think about what they would demand fromthe other role (the teacher) regarding help that the student himself/herself needs. In otherwords, when the student thinks about teaching or evaluation and expresses what he/shewould expect from the teacher, he/she is more constructive than when selecting an optionregarding his/her own learning. More interpretative or even direct responses are preferredin learning.

In summary, the contributions of popular music benefit not only formal education inmandatory educational fields, but can also lead to rethinking the format of ‘excellence’ inhigher education (Karlsen, 2010), since other ways are viable in other cultures. We couldpay particular attention to whether the type of formalised music education might hinderlearning in people who have been trained in more informal spheres (Feichas, 2010).

To conclude, we do not intend to say whether one culture is above or below othersregarding a given kind of values previously established from the conceptions of one ofthe cultures (fully academic). This analysis shows the points in which there are significantdifferences of a certain kind, which are crucial to understanding education in each socialgroup. The theories about cognitive change have usually focused on the endpoints ofdevelopment (skills in activities such as operational, formal and scientific reasoning andpractices related to reading-writing). These are valuable goals, but are linked to their owncontext and culture, like any other developmental goal or endpoint valued by a givencommunity (Rogoff, 1990). This perspective may allow us to enter into ulterior analysesprecisely of those aspects that have been highlighted here. We venture to suggest thatpractices of a certain kind might be in tune with thinking of a certain kind, but we must bealert to the intrinsic values from which those practices are emphasised socially.

N o t e

1 The sample, which has many more male than female participants, is not a matter of bias, but reality.In popular urban music, women rarely participate in any group as instrumentalists (Green, 1997).

R e f e r e n c e s

BAUTISTA, A. (2009) Concepciones de profesores y alumnos de piano sobre la enseñanza y el aprendizajede partituras musicales [Conceptions of piano teachers and students about teaching and learning ofmusical scores]. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain.

BAUTISTA, A., PÉREZ ECHEVERRÍA, M. P., POZO, J. I. & BRIZUELA, B. (2009) Piano students’ conceptionsof musical scores as external representations: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Research in MusicEducation, 57, 181–202.

BAUTISTA, A., PÉREZ ECHEVERRÍA, M. P. & POZO, J. I. (2010) Music performance teachers’ conceptionsabout learning and instruction: a descriptive study of Spanish piano teachers. Psychology of Music,38, 85–106.

BAUTISTA, A., PÉREZ ECHEVERRÍA, M. P., POZO, J. I. & BRIZUELA, B. (2012) Piano students’ conceptionsof learning, teaching, assessment, and evaluation. Estudios de Psicología, 33, 79–104.

BLACKING, J. (1978) Some problems of theory and method in the study of musical change. Yearbook of theInternational Folk Music Council, 9, 1–26.

BRANSFORD, J. D., BROWN, A. & COOKING, P. (2000) How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, andSchool. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.

338



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051714000096



CASAS, A. & POZO, J. I. (2008) ¿Cómo se utilizan las partituras en la enseñanza y el aprendizaje de lamúsica? [How scores are used in the teaching and learning of music?]. Cultura y Educación, 20, 49–62.

CASAS, A., POZO, J. I. & SCHEUER, N. (2013) Tell s who you are, and we tell you what you learn.Manuscript in preparation, Department of Psychology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain.

CHAFFIN, R., IMREH, G., LEMIEUX, A. & CHEN, C. (2003) “Seeing the big picture”: Piano practice asexpert problem solving. Music Perception, 20, 465–490.

DE CORTE, E. (1996) New perspectives on learning and teaching in higher education. In A. Burgen (Ed.),Goals and Purposes of Higher Education in the 21st Century (pp. 112–132). London: Jessica KingsleyPublishers.

DECRETO 36/2011, OF JUNE 2 (B.O.C.M. of 16 June 2011) Plan de Estudios para la Comunidad de Madrid,de las enseñanzas artísticas superiores de Grado en Música [Curriculum for the Community of Madrid,of the Artistic Bachelor of Music Degree]. Madrid, Spain.

DONALD, M. (1991) Origins of the Modern Mind. Three Stages in the Evolution of Culture and Cognition.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

DONALD, M. (1993) Précis of origins of the modern mind: three stages in the evolution of culture andcognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 737–791.

DUKE, R. A., SIMMONS, A. L. & CASH, C. D. (2009) It’s not how much; it’s how: Characteristics of practicebehaviour and retention of performance skills. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56, 310–321.

DUNBAR-HALL, P. & WEMYSS, K. (2000) The effects of the study of popular music on music education.International Journal of Music Education, 36, 23–34.

ELLIOTT, D. (1989) Key concepts in multicultural music education. International Journal of Music Education,13, 11–18.

ENTWISTLE, N. J. (2007) Conceptions of learning and the experience of understanding: thresholds,contextual influences, and knowledge objects. In S. Vosniadou, A. Baltas & X. Vamvakoussi (Eds.),Reframing the Conceptual Change in Learning and Instruction (pp. 123–144). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

FEICHAS, H. (2010) Bridging the gap: informal learning practices as a pedagogy of integration. BritishJournal of Music Education, 27, 47–58.

FOLKESTAD, G. (1998) Musical learning as a cultural practice. As exemplified in computer-based creativemusic making. In B. Sundin, G. McPherson & G. Folkestad (Eds.), Children Composing (pp. 97–134).Malmö: Lund University, Malmö Academy of Music.

FOLKESTAD, G. (2004) A meta-analytic approach to qualitative studies in music education: a new modelapplied to creativity and composition. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education,161/162, 83–90.

FOLKESTAD, G. (2006) Formal and informal learning situations or practices vs. formal and informal waysof learning. British Journal of Music Education, 23, 135–145.

GEORGII-HEMMING, E. & WESTVALL, M. (2010) Music education – a personal matter? Examining thecurrent discourses of music education in Sweden. British Journal of Music Education, 27, 21–33.

GOWER, A. (2012) Integrating informal learning approaches into the formal learning environment ofmainstream secondary schools in England. British Journal of Music Education, 29, 13–18.

GREEN, L. (1997) Music, Gender, Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.GREEN, L. (2001) How Popular Musicians Learn: A Way Ahead for Music Education. Aldershot: Ashgate.GREEN, L. (2008) Music, Informal Learning and the School: A New Classroom Pedagogy. Aldershot: Ashgate.GREEN, L. (Ed.) (2011) Learning, Teaching, and Musical Identity. Voices across Cultures. Bloomington, IN:

Indiana University Press.GRUSON, L. M. (1988) Rehearsal skills and musical competence. Does practice make perfect? In

J. A. Sloboda (Ed.), Generative Processes in Music (pp. 91–112). Oxford: Clarendon Press.HALLAM, S. (2007) Music Psychology in Education. London: Institute of Education, University of London.HOWE, M. J. A. & SLOBODA, J. A. (1991) Young musicians’ accounts of significant influences in their early

lives. 1. The family and the musical background. British Journal of Music Education, 8, 39–52.

339



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051714000096



HULTBERG, C. (2002) Approaches to music notation: the printed score as a mediator of meaning in Westerntonal tradition. Music Education Research, 4, 185–197.

JORGENSEN, H. (2002) Instrumental performance expertise and amount of practice among instrumentalstudents in a conservatoire. Music Education Research, 4, 105–119.

KARLSEN, S. (2010) BoomTown Music Education and the need for authenticity – informal learning put intopractice in Swedish post-compulsory music education. British Journal of Music Education, 27, 35–46.

KARLSEN, S. (2012) Multiple repertoires of ways of being and acting in music: immigrant students’ musicalagency as an impetus for democracy. Music Education Research, 14, 131–148.

KEMBER, D. (2001) Beliefs about knowledge and the process of teaching and learning as a factor in adjustingto study in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 26, 205–221.

KLATTER, E. B., LODEWIJKS, H. G. L. C. & AARNOUTSE, C. A. J. (2001) Learning conceptions of youngstudent in the final year of primary education. Learning and Instruction, 11, 485–516.

LAMONT, A., HARGREAVES, D. J., MARSHALL, N. A. & TARRANT, M. (2003) Young people’s music in andout of school. British Journal of Music Education, 20, 229–241.

LEÓN, O. G. & MONTERO, I. (2003) Métodos de Investigación en Psicología y Educación [ResearchMethods in Psychology and Education] (3rd ed.). Madrid: McGraw-Hill.

LILLIESTAM, L. (1996) On playing by ear. Popular Music, 15, 195–216.LÓPEZ, G. & POZO, J. I. (2010) What could I do to play this piece . . . ? Conceptions of cello beginner

students about learning processes. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Students ofSystematic Musicology. Cambridge, 13–15 September.

LÓPEZ-ÍÑIGUEZ, G. & POZO, J. I. (2013) The influence of teachers’ conceptions on their students’ learning:Children’s understanding of sheet music. British Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance onlinepublication. doi:10.1111/bjep.12026.

LÓPEZ-ÍÑIGUEZ, G. & POZO, J. I. (in press) Like teacher, like student? Conceptions of children fromtraditional and constructive teachers regarding the teaching and learning of string instruments.Cognition and Instruction.

LÓPEZ-ÍÑIGUEZ, G., POZO, J. I. & DE DIOS, M. J. (2014) The older, the wiser? Profiles of string teacherswith different experience, regarding to teaching, learning and evaluation. Psychology of Music, 42,157–176. doi:10.1177/0305735612463772.

MARÍN, C., PÉREZ ECHEVERRÍA, M. P. & HALLAM, S. (2012) Using the musical score to perform:a study with Spanish flute students. British Journal of Music Education, 29, 193–212. doi:10.1017/S0265051712000046.

MARÍN, C., SCHEUER, N. & PÉREZ-ECHEVERRÍA, M. P. (2013) Formal music education not only enhancesmusical skills, but also conceptions of teaching and learning: a study with woodwind students.European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28, 781–805.

MCPHERSON, G. E. (2005) From child to musician: skill development during the beginning stages oflearning an instrument. Psychology of Music, 33, 5–35.

MIDDLETON, R. (1981) Popular music, I, 4: Europe & North America: Genre, form, style. In Middleton, R.& Horn, D. (Eds), Popular Music. Folk or Popular? Distinctions, Influences, Continuities. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

MIDDLETON, R. (1990) Studying Popular Music. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.MONTERO, I. & LEÓN, O. (2007) A guide for naming research studies in psychology. International Journal

of Clinical and Health Psychology, 7, 847–862.OLSON, D. R. & BRUNER, J. S. (1996) Folk psychology and folk pedagogy. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance

(Eds), Handbook of Education and Human Development: New Models of Learning, Teaching andSchooling (pp. 9–27). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

PÉREZ ECHEVERRÍA, M. P., MATEOS, M., POZO, J. I. & SCHEUER, N. (2001) En busca del constructivismoperdido. [In search of lost construtivism]. Estudios de Psicología, 22(2), 155–173.

340



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051714000096



PETERSON, E. R. & IRVING, S. E. (2008) Secondary school students’ conceptions of assessment andfeedback. Learning and Instruction, 18, 238–250.

PIAGET, J. (1974) Réussir et comprendre. Paris: P.U.F.POZO, J. I. & GÓMEZ CRESPO, M. A. (2005) The embodied nature of implicit theories: the consistency of

ideas about the nature of matter. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 351–387.POZO, J. I., SCHEUER, N., PÉREZ ECHEVERRÍA, M. P., MATEOS, M., MARTÍN, E. & DE LA CRUZ, M. (Eds.)

(2006) Nuevas formas de pensar la enseñanza y el aprendizaje. Las concepciones de profesores yalumnos. Barcelona: Graó.

REAL DECRETO 631/2010, OF MAY 14 (B.OE. of June 5, 2010) Contenido básico de las enseñanzas artísticassuperiores de Grado en Música establecidas en la Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de mayo, de Educación[Basic content of the Artistic Bachelor of Music Degree established in the Organic Law 2/2006, of 3May, on Education]. Spain.

ROBINSON, T. (2010) How Popular Musicians Teach (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Department ofMusic, University of Sheffield.

ROBINSON, T. (2012) Popular musicians and instrumental teachers: the influence of informal learning onteaching strategies. British Journal of Music Education, 29, 359–370.

ROGOFF, B. (1990) Apprenticeship in Thinking. Cognitive Development in Social Context. New York:Oxford University Press.

SAWYER, K. (Ed.) (2006) Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

SCHEUER, N., DE LA CRUZ, M. & POZO, J. I. (2002) Children talk about learning to draw. European Journalof Psychology of Education, 17, 101–114.

SCHIPPERS, H. (1996) Teaching world music in the Netherlands: towards a model for cultural diversity inmusic education. International Journal of Music Education, 27, 16–23.

SEIFRIED, S. (2006) Exploring the outcomes of rock and popular music instruction in high school guitarclass: a case study. International Journal of Music Education, 24, 168–177.

SEXTON, F. (2012) Practitioner challenges working with informal learning pedagogies. British Journal ofMusic Education, 29, 7–11.

SHAH, S. M. (2006) Popular music in Malaysia: education from the outsider. International Journal of MusicEducation, 24, 132–139.

SPERBER, D. (1996) Explaining Culture. A Naturalistic Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.TAGG, Ph. (1982) Analysing popular music: theory, method and practice. Popular Music, 2, 37–65.TRILLA, J. (1997) Relaciones entre la educación formal, la no formal y la informal [Relations between formal,

non-formal and informal education]. In La educación fuera de la escuela (pp. 187–196). México: Ariel.VYGOTSKY, L. S. (1933/1978) Mind in Society. The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.

M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, E. Souberman (Eds). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.WANG, J. C. & HUMPHREYS, J. T. (2009) Multicultural and popular music content in an American music

teacher education program. International Journal of Music Education, 27, 19–36.WILLIAMON, A., VALENTINE, E. & VALENTINE, J. (2002) Shifting the focus of attention between levels of

musical structure. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 14, 493–520.WOODY, R. H. (1999) The relationship between explicit planning and expressive performance of dynamic

variations in an aural modelling task. Journal of Research in Music Education, 47, 331–342.WRIGHT, R. & KANELLOPOULOS, P. (2010) Informal music learning, improvisation and teacher education.

British Journal of Music Education, 27, 71–87.

Amalia Casas-Mas teaches educational psychology and sociology of music education atthe Royal Conservatory of Music in Madrid, Spain. She has a PhD in psychology in thefield of Psychology of Music Learning. Her topic focuses on different ways of learning

341



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051714000096



music in formal and informal contexts, specialising in Flamenco music communities. Shehas published in Estudios de Psicología and in Cultura y Educación.

Juan-Ignacio Pozo is Professor at the Faculty of Psychology of Universidad Autónoma deMadrid, Spain, where he teaches topics related to the psychology of learning. His researchfocuses on the processes of knowledge acquisition in different subject domains, such asscience, history, geography, and also music. He has studied how to change teachers’ andlearners’ conceptions of learning in order to transform instructional settings, publishingseveral books and papers about learning and teaching in those domains.

Ignacio Montero is Associate Professor of Research Methods in Psychology and Educationat Universidad Autónoma of Madrid. He has investigated issues related to developmentof self-regulation through private speech. Recently he has edited the volume PrivateSpeech, Executive Functioning, and the Development of Verbal Self-regulation (CambridgeUniversity Press), in collaboration with Winsler and Fernyhough, as well as several paperson this topic.

342



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051714000096


the inﬂuence of music learning cultures on the construction of … · table 1 implicit theories...

Documents